Why Am I Not Surprised that U.S. Citizenship is for Sale?

I’m going to admit something here that is going to date me quite a bit, so here goes: I remember the recession of the mid-70’s. I remember gas rationing, I remember the calls to eliminate the very new EPA. I remember the Cuyahoga River out in Ohio catching on fire. I remember strong pro-American anti-foreign anything sentiment surrounding the purchase of anything. Honda owners and dealerships were objects of criticism and picket lines.

No where in there – or any of the other 4 recessions since then (which doesn’t include this current one) – do I recall America pimping itself out as much as it is now.

And no – I’m not talking about the Keystone Pipeline or the MSTI line…or Otter Creek coal and the railroad that’s taking the stuff to China.

For one million buckaroos and the creation of 10 “permanent” full-time jobs, U.S. citizenship can be yours.

Half a million if you pull it off in a “high unemployment or rural area.”

I don’t begrudge anyone citizenship here in the United States. Our country was founded by immigrants – and more importantly, it was built by immigrants. All but war criminals (we’ve got our own) are welcome in my mind.

It is, though, patently unfair to grant U.S. citizenship to the richest of the poorest and worse of nations. The Missoulian story I link to above cites Missoula developers Ed Wetherbee and Kevin Mytty’s quest for a Chinese investor.

A Chinese investor that likely paid barely living wages to people who (between work and commute) pull 15 hour days in order to make that million. A Chinese investor who likely paid off government party officials in exchange for stolen public lands that resulting in the displacing of whole communities or any other number of beneficial arrangements. The Chinese economic system is not only notoriously corrupt, it’s a shell-game of fake investment.

Of course, that sort of corruption is just par the course for someone seeking U.S. citizenship, isn’t it?

I don’t like it. It isn’t fair. It’s ripe with the stench of corruption. U.S. citizenship should not be beholden to the highest bidder, on the easiest speediest path.

Leaving the poorest behind or at a disadvantage in what the U.S. should consider the most valued is not the right thing to be doing.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

I seem to remember the Reagan administration greasing the skids for Rupert Murdoch’s citizenship in the 1980s. Look how well that turned out for American democracy.
Rupert then married a lovely young thing straight out of the Politboro in Bejing, so maybe it’s all a Commie Plot!

I guess if I had to choose between selling citizenship to rich third-world rodents or giving it away to poor third-world rodents, I would choose the former. I mean, if we are going to be overrun no matter what, we might as well try to make some money off it, right?

The Downtown Master Plan calls for using public resources to attract private investment. Play Ball Missoula raised more than $5 million from the private sector to build the stadium, and we have not used general taxes to support that facility.

That stadium has been a major economic driver in this community. Events held there have provided a significant number of jobs, contracts for vendors, dollars for local businesses, and tax revenues for our community. It serves as a tourist destination, as well as an attraction for those who live here. Why wouldn’t we want to support that?

This http://wgmgroup.com/projects/Grants/OldSawmillDistrict.pdf
20 million that they want to add to the millions already given to the ballpark and Mytty and Weatherbee. I think this grant application was rejected but , they’ll be back.
I asked the Missoulian awhile back to look into how much actural cash… their own money they have put into the old mill site but haven’t seen anything.

Max can say whatever he wants to about me. I have a pretty thick skin. And perhaps jhwygirl is right, his comments usually reflect poorly on him — and really, on mainstream Republicans. I know he’s been banned over at Electric City Weblog.

I just find his misogynistic, racist — and I never use this word lightly — fascist rhetoric, to be extremely offensive. And it does nothing to advance the sometimes thoughtful and enlightening discussions that can take place at a blog.

I mean, just look at the one, small example above:
immigrants = third-world rodents. That’s one of his lesser transgressions.

Max should be 86’d. I kept this gem from a while back (not from here, but from Tokarski’s, who also banned him…haha, right?):

Egyptians are a savage race doomed to live in ignorance and poverty forever. From the pharaohs of prehistory, down to Alexander the Great, the Roman conquest, the caliphs of Islam, the Crusaders, and modern colonial times, the Egyptian masses have always lived under the heel of an oppressive government. Whether the oppressor is of foreign or domestic origin makes no difference. Whether the oppressor is supported by outside money or by internal theft makes no difference, either. The result is always the same for Egypt.

The current rioting and looting by Egyptian mobs will lead nowhere. Egypt cannot have any stable, modern form of democratic government because the Egyptian masses are savages. There is simply no useable human material to work with in Egypt. Thus, Egyptians will continue to live like dogs and be treated like dogs. It is a pattern of history that has remained unbroken for thousands of years.

MB is all about fear and loathing. That said, I feel that each poster has to make their own call

I believe that the 4&20 policy of allowing contributors to make their own call on their own posts is a good policy and I completely support your call, j’grl

i also support Pete’s and Lizard’s call, because it’s their intellectual property and they can do what they like with their own property.

It’s good to see people talking about censorship, and it’s good to see people personally standing up for less censorship on their own property, especially when the personal property in question and the speech in question are a quasi-public participation blog.

We have conservatives who comment frequently at 4&20: Pogo, Dave Budge visits from time-to-time, of course Ingy (who I almost always disagree with but at least he has a sense of humor and an occasionally interesting link), I even tolerate ol’ Eric Coobs.

And I have yet to delete or block Max, though I’ve been sorely tempted.

I always thought the policy here was the free flow of ideas until the comments cross the line into racism and misogyny. Max often crosses that line.

But I like Steve W’s suggestion that we patrol our own posts and delete or block what we feel is inappropriate. I can live with that for now.

Yeah, girl, you are getting pretty close now. I am actually starting to like your style—standing up for the right to disagree. But as I said in a reply to you, above, you really need to stop enrolling me in some political party or movement. The last organization I belonged to was the US military, and that was more than 40 years ago. (And, no, I am not a member of AARP.)

You know, in Anglo-Saxon law there is a very old tort principle called the “thin-skinned plaintiff.” Basically, the concept holds that in a free society a citizen is often confronted with words, symbols, and ideas that he finds abhorrent, but that does not give him a cause of action per se. He just has to live with it as the price of freedom.

So, for example, if you make a public appearance and take a position on birth control, and some radio jock calls you a slut because of that, tough break. You have no cause of action, and, really, nothing to complain about because you asked for it by making a public figure out of yourself.

And that is Pete’s problem. Setting aside his canned spew about fascism, misogyny, racism, and other threadbare slogans, the man just has a thin skin. He should not be publishing his ideas in this blog if he cannot take criticism or even verbal abuse.

Is English your second language? Do you need to have everything repeated twice? Or is it that when you are confronted with the plain meaning of something, your brain locks because of a cross-wiring malfunction.

Do you hear me whining about the elementary school epithets that are so common around here? Duh, no.

Did I ever say Pete should be censored? Duh, no. I said he should get out of the kitchen if he cannot take the heat.

Making an author’s right to publish his ideas (” He should not be publishing his ideas in this blog if…”) in his own blog contingent on his ability to “take criticism or even verbal abuse” is just trolling.

And attacking me with your “elementary school epithets” to make your point just shows you don’t know how to engage in constructive dialog.

And yes, your reply to me above is “whining.” You’re very good at it when people try to pin you down. When you can’t engage in the topic at hand, you just get personal and abusive.

Why don’t you engage in the topic of this post?

Do you think Missoula is well served when the Old Saw Mill project is moving forward by the investments of foreigners looking for citizenship as a reward? Or are you unable to construct a rational response that doesn’t involve a racist or classist 4underpinning?

Sometimes a rather simplified reply is better than an in-depth analysis. In my original reply, I merely pointed out that if the country is to be overrun with immigrants, then we might as well make some money off it.

Since you obviously missed the inference in that abbreviated response, allow me to point out that leftists have consistently blocked all efforts to secure our borders. But that was when the illegal aliens were poor and downtrodden and only seeking work. Now what do we have? Oh, a fat cat Asian. Big difference. Close the gates!

Now, if you desire a more in-depth analysis, please continue reading.

The original post is simply a variation on Marxist class consciousness and class warfare, with an emphasis on foreign capitalist exploiters rather than domestic.
But since that is nothing more than a worn-out theory that has only recently found some brief popularity, I shall confine my comment to the other cliché contained in the original post, namely, that we are a nation of immigrants.

While it is apparently true that most, if not all, of the inhabitants of this continent came from elsewhere, according to the current state of science, and therefore it might be generally said we are a “nation of immigrants,” it is not true that the immigrants who founded America and made her great are the same immigrants of today.

The first immigrants to permanently settle America were white Northern Europeans, primarily English-speaking people, and all followers of the Christian faith, at first the Protestant branch and later the Catholic branch. Thus, we begin with a common racial stock, common language, and common religion.

Because of a serious oversight in the US Constitution, the laws regarding immigration were not addressed, and over time, the commonality described above began to be eroded by the increasing relaxation of immigration standards. The disintegration is fairly easy to follow in outline: Next came the Irish, and although they spoke a dialect of English, they were predominately Catholics. Likewise, the next wave of immigrants, the Italians, was all Catholics also, but they spoke no English whatsoever. Finally, the Jews begin arriving, speaking all sorts of languages from the Diaspora countries and belonging to a religion reviled by most Christians.

At this point in this very condensed outline we have seen the breakdown, in reverse order, of religious commonality and language commonality. Next, of course, is the breakdown in racial commonality, which is where we are today and have been headed toward since the close of WW II.

Now, I might easily say that the original post in this thread had nothing to do with Missoula economics or the sacred nature of citizenship. Rather, it was just crypto-racism dressed up as something else. The writer pretends to dislike capitalist exploiters but in reality dislikes Asians. Why might that be true? Because America is full of capitalist exploiters and other types. What harm could one more possibly do? Ah, but this one is the wrong race.

However, I do not think that is the case here, rather, as I said out the outset, the original post is merely a repackaging of Marxist ideology with an immigrant twist.

— Max Bucks

PS: If you knew anything about American history, you would know that our government has published millions of billboards, posters, and other materials characterizing Asians as rodents. Our government has even produced animated full-color cartoons, shown to millions of Americans at the Saturday movie matinees, depicting Asians as rodents.

“allow me to point out that leftists have consistently blocked all efforts to secure our borders”

I would offer that the problem predates the rise of leftism in America. It began when First Nations peoples helped the Pilgrims out.

Everything else you have written is just a bunch of historical revisionism. And a bit of back tracking to CYA (referring to your previous blather as “merely…” really shows how little self reflection you put into your words).

C’mon, j-gal, “when did (I) start hating the First Amendment.” You know me better than that.

But still, when I see Max Bucks’ quotes like: “it is not true that the immigrants who founded America and made her great are the same immigrants of today,” I cringe. How do you intelligently debate comments like that?

Pretty sure his statements misogynistic and racist statements are covered under the First Amendment, and while 4&20 isn’t obligated to ensuring First Amendment rights are met, this is a blog, after all.

What does it say about this place if we censor statements on the criteria of not agreeing with them?

If I go over to Polymontana and advocate for equality rights for gay marriage, is it OK for them to censor me? Because it may be in their opinion that gay rights are just as patently offensive as we find racism. Or misogyny.

Don’t debate him if you don’t want to, Pete. No one’s forcing you to do that.

I’ve been at this for more than 7 years. No one – NO ONE – ever stepping in on Larry or Mark for their misogynistic statements. And that’s even after I openly took on the issue back in 2008 at LiTW, and even here on these pages many months ago. All of a sudden now people are concerned about vile statements?

I’m not sorry – but I do find it ironic that all of a sudden there are calls for Max to be banned for making racist and misogynistic comments.

A number of people have done that over the years, and not a peep from anyone.

I did call out Larry Kralj over at Cowgirl for his misogynistic remarks on the Gallik story. Sorry you missed it, jhwygirl.

It’s not that I disagree with Bucks comments — I disagree with lots of people’s comments, including some of my fellow B-Birds’ — but I’m not going to delete any of them. We usually have a rational discussion, sort things out and sometimes agree to disagree.

Bucks is different. He’s the worst kind of troll: off topic, inflammatory, irrelevant and downright ugly.

The worst part of it is he’s probably chuckling right now because we actually care about and are discussing things like access, debate, First Amendment rights, tolerance, civility — things he doesn’t give a shit about.

To Lizard19: Thank you for republishing my comment about the Egyptian mob. You found the comment to be a “gem” because it is hard, clear, and bright. It is a very highly compressed and completely accurate synopsis of Egyptian history.

I do wonder about the following:

1. If there are any historical inaccuracies in that comment, why have you not pointed them out?

2. Why have you not kept up with the news out of Egypt? Is it not true that the Egyptian masses “continue to live like dogs” and are being treated like dogs?

— Max Bucks

PS: Please excuse the position of this reply. I could not figure out where to place it.

Max Bucks is a booger eating troll. While I support the First Amendment and think the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional I would laugh heartily to see him charged for his comments on a previous thread. What about it Max? Are you still a decorated war hero?

I have been frustrated before with comments allowed to be posted at the Missoulian calling homeless people rodents, a plague, and deserving of being put in a mass grave. my concern is that using that kind of dehumanizing language about a diverse group of people creates a more tolerant environment for that group to be targeted, sometimes violently.

so when j-girl says this:

Max is vile and disgusting. How else am I going to prove that the GOP and the Tea Party is racist and a bunch of idiot if 4&20 censors him?

Let the GOP and the Tea Party tell him his views aren’t representative of them.

I have to wonder why she feels it necessary to use that disgusting language to prove the entire GOP and Tea Party are racist?

does the GOP use race baiting and coded language to exploit the racist tendencies of many individuals within their base? yeah, you can make a pretty good argument that that’s been a successful part of their strategy.

but is EVERYONE in the GOP and Tea Party racist? I don’t think that’s provable.

I’m potentially over-sensitive about this topic right now, so that needs to be taken into consideration. the backlash against how I stereotyped Saudi Arabian male exchange students in my angry post still stings a bit I guess.

if it’s not ok (and I agree that it’s not) to imply all young male Saudi Arabian exchange students are going to try and drug and rape American women, then I don’t think it should be ok to equate the blatant racism of MB with the entirety of the GOP.

I didn’t say “everyone” – you are attributing words to me that I didn’t use.

Pete, on the other hand, did say this:

And perhaps jhwygirl is right, his comments usually reflect poorly on him — and really, on mainstream Republicans.

Silence is acquiescent, at least to some degree, so I repeat – let the GOP and the Tea Party tell him his views aren’t representative of them. If ECWL banned him, that’s pretty much that group of conservatives saying that they didn’t want him around as part of their group – and I laud them for it.

Republicans and Tea Party and conservatives read this blog. Let them tell him that they don’t agree with him.

It’s not my job to make right wingers like Max look good or sane or reasonable.

so you laud ECWL for depriving Max of his first amendment right to troll their comment threads with his offensive crap, but you are asking (rhetorically) Pete and I when we started hating on first amendment rights for advocating we make the same decision?

My view is to either hone my skills at revealing the dark underbelly of comments like his, or to ignore him. To the degree he represents a faction of this country that is authoritarian, racist and misogynist, then his comments just become another way to explore how to reveal that to a broader audience.

If it gets personally ugly, then I support the author of any post here doing what they will, with it.

After your remark about “First Nations peoples,” above, it is painfully obvious that your knowledge of American history is still at the stage of cutting out little paper turkeys and Indian feathers to study Thanksgiving.

As for knowledge of Charles Darwin or God, your adolescent response tells me all I need to know.

Have a nice day. And, please, spend a little time finding some new and more sophisticated epithets.

For what it is worth, from a non b’birder, its your blog so ban/censor whomever you wish for what ever reasons you desire.

My only suggestion is that those b’birders doing the banning/censoring be honest in both the reason for the ban and the the offense committed. That has not always been the case by a few of the b’birders who have censored comments in the past.